Terrorist attack kills 50 in Orlando, Florida

Well, you two seem quite set in your ways to demonize my religion so I'm just going to drop it. It isn't my job to absolve you of paranoia.

I'm not paranoid; all I was doing was voicing my disagreement with a religion I find to be abhorrent. If you want to point me in the direction of other religions that have caused such modern levels of violence, I will treat them in the same regard. Regardless of how many ''good'' people there are who follow the faith, the blood trail that the religion itself is leaving behind is big. We mock the Westboro Baptist Church because they're idiots and they preach barbarism and savagry, as we should. People mock Islamic faith for similar reasons, and other than ''NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE THAT'' and ''SHUT UP YOU RACIST PHOBIC INCARNATION OF HITLER'' I almost never see any legitimate defense being levied against them. I've even watched some debates between professionals, and when questioned on the religion they always opted for a moral defense, dodging the issue, pointing the finger at the religion(or philosphy) their opponent was following and thought of one terrible dictator to compare to, or other shady tactics.


When your religion has been one of the highest motivating factors for cruel acts, and openly encourages you to commit what we would consider today to be atrocities, you're damn right you have an obligation to defend the reason you would support such a cause. No other religion is immune to this level of criticism, except Islam I guess, because anyone who questions it are just scared and hateful of a religion of peace.


But it seems you follow the religion itself so I guess you wouldn't be impartial on the issue, and it isn't my job to absolve you of your apologism.

-Bad people will get guns regardless of further gun restrictions; in fact, they will get guns even more easily in greater quantities, AND make more money off of them on a black market to fund their terrorism.
- snip -

That's not what Five Second Pose was arguing.
What he said was: if we assume that gun laws will only keep guns out of honest people's hands, but not those of determined criminals or terrorists,
then immigration laws will only keep honest Muslims out, but determined terrorists would still find their way into the country.

In my opinion, it is necessary to acknowledge that we are at war with Islamic extremist terrorists. And it is necessary to fight this war resolutely and effectively. But it would be foolish to declare war on Islam itself. All that would do is create a lot more angry young men to follow Al-Baghdadi, both in America (do you really think you can deport all Muslims?) and Europe, and in the 30-40 countries with a Muslim majority or large minority.

-Bluntly speaking, Europe is already gone, they have no way to excise the cancer at this point and their only path now is to die off and become a new Muslim state. That's not me being exaggerative or overreacting, I don't mind if you don't agree with it because you don't need to, the proof will begin showing up regardless of any denials within the next decade at the very most and probably much sooner; the Muslim ban isn't the only thing that can fix this and isn't my first choice, but it's the least extreme by far.

And you recommend that America just seal its borders and then watch as all the NATO assets in Europe fall into Muslim hands?
If, as you believe, all Muslims are hell-bent on destroying Western culture, then that is way more suicidally stupid than allowing Iran to continue its nuclear program.

-Logically, you would think so. The fact of the matter is though, the extremists are not misinterpreting their sacred texts as he said, they are following them to the letter. Maybe the first step should be rewriting that pomegranate to be less xenophobic and insane, a new testament of sorts that makes them into human beings that are actually tolerable to be around and not bloodthirsty psychopaths.

Jewish (and, by extension, Christian) sacred texts contain all sorts of bloodthirsty injunctions and laws.
One does not change sacred texts that were supposedly written by God Himself (or dictated to His prophets).
One reinterprets them. Religious scholars are really good at interpreting whatever is written to mean whatever they want it to mean. Just look at the history of Christianity, and the many different flavors it had and has, all claiming to follow the same scriptures.

-Religion, quite honestly, is a thing that should have gone to the wayside centuries ago. That includes A(nti)theism. It's a waste of time and a detriment to the advancement of society, just look at all the negative pomegranate that stems from it. I get that some people are not able to cope with things and have to blame/follow a higher power, but that's on them, not society, to deal with their pineappleed up problems.

That's a whole different discussion and quite irrelevant to the current issue.
I'll just point out that people have done, and continue to do, horrible things in the name of all sorts of ideologies and allegiances that have nothing to do with supreme beings. Just look at the hooligan soccer fans in France right now. It seems to be part of human nature. We can't excise it, we need to learn to control it.

Going off Sapta's last point: I believe that even if religion was abolished, people would find other reasons to have disputes.

Going off Sapta's last point: I believe that even if religion was abolished, people would find other reasons to have disputes.

I don't agree with Flonne saying we should just block up our fort and not let anyone in. All I'm saying is I think it's a bad religion, and people who support the religion need to do some serious thinking about what it is they're supporting, as for actual Muslims themselves I'm sure the majority of them are nice people or at least have the capacity to be nice people.

Not saying religion needs to be abolished at all, but I definitely stand fast in my belief that it's still a barbaric religion. Christianity and such have also justified countless horrors in their own sacred texts, but in the time and ages most of these have happened we weren't really that intelligent as a species, the average Christian that you ask today would scorn a significant portion of what religious people did in the past and Christianity itself...for better or for worse is adapting more and more to current times and ideas. There are still psychopathic religious nutjobs out there that are influenced by religion to kill. A LOT of the time these people have serious mental issues and virtually anything could have set them off, the killers themselves were just mentally ill to begin with so you can't really say Christianity is completely at fault.


Many of the terrorists who act in the name of Islam as far as I know don't have the mental deficiencies the psychos that are common with religiously motivated killings in modern times have. Their text has not adapted to modern times and that is fine.......they don't have to change their religion if they don't want to and don't need to adopt it to the standards of a modern society, but that doesn't change my views on it and if they really don't like the way cultures act in the West then they really need to leave instead of causing mass shootings and bombings. Even(what I assume to be) the majority are not killers like these terrorists are, they are still supporting a religion that.....without shame still demands acts that by modern societies standards are abhorrent. I said it was a savage religion, and all of this moral slinging back and fourth isn't changing my opinion on that. Call me a racist evil nazi hitler sociopath incarnate, I think it's a bad religion.

That's not what Five Second Pose was arguing.
What he said was: if we assume that gun laws will only keep guns out of honest people's hands, but not those of determined criminals or terrorists,
then immigration laws will only keep honest Muslims out, but determined terrorists would still find their way into the country.

In my opinion, it is necessary to acknowledge that we are at war with Islamic extremist terrorists. And it is necessary to fight this war resolutely and effectively. But it would be foolish to declare war on Islam itself. All that would do is create a lot more angry young men to follow Al-Baghdadi, both in America (do you really think you can deport all Muslims?) and Europe, and in the 30-40 countries with a Muslim majority or large minority.

-It's a lot harder to hide your nationality than it is to hide a gun, you know. Determined terrorists will find their way in and be arrested on sight before they can even get to a crowded area if there were a Muslim ban, because at that point only the terrorists or persons of interest WOULD still be in the country, the rest would be gone. They can't just hide in a crowd of innocent Muslims when none are supposed to be left in the country.

-If they were that close to switching sides anyway, I question their allegiance in the first place. If violence is the only answer for that many of them, then it just further proves my point that they are all the problem and the seeds of that violence are in every last one of them.

And you recommend that America just seal its borders and then watch as all the NATO assets in Europe fall into Muslim hands?
If, as you believe, all Muslims are hell-bent on destroying Western culture, then that is way more suicidally stupid than allowing Iran to continue its nuclear program.

I said it wasn't my first choice because it's not my first choice, it's just the choice that is the least extreme. The most efficient choice would be to "excise the cancer", so to speak, which is a very apt euphemism for this particular case, because cancer always grows back eventually unless you wipe it out completely. That's too extreme for most everyone, and I understand that that will never happen, so I'm just floating much less effective solutions that are feasible. If even temporarily banning them until we get them under control is too extreme then I don't have a solution that would make any difference, we probably won't be destroyed simply because of the amount of guns the average southern American has even if the government does try to ban them, but it will be a war, and not just over in some other country, here. Likely, the government will either refuse to fight it or will actively aide the invaders and call us crazy or xenophobic or whatever, but so be it, the government isn't the end all and be all of everything, if things have to be taken into our own hands it can be done.

So, yes, allowing them to gain NATO's resources is crazy, but we can't interfere with the EU, at least not until they have completely broken down and can be deemed to be essentially wiped out. Other countries that have decided to do these things are currently not our problem, the US and only the US is our problem, we can pick up the pieces but that's about the extent of our influence. Allowing them to infiltrate here would only hurt our chances of retaliating when eventually that happens, because they will start hitting us internally and externally at the same time.

Jewish (and, by extension, Christian) sacred texts contain all sorts of bloodthirsty injunctions and laws.
One does not change sacred texts that were supposedly written by God Himself (or dictated to His prophets).
One reinterprets them. Religious scholars are really good at interpreting whatever is written to mean whatever they want it to mean. Just look at the history of Christianity, and the many different flavors it had and has, all claiming to follow the same scriptures.

I agree, you are supposed to reinterpret them. The Talmud is the most insanely xenophobic book ever written, it outright says that all people who are not both followers of the book AND pureblooded are less than cattle and can be killed for simply WALKING in front of a pureblood. (Most) Jewish people don't follow that pomegranate anymore, they decided that it was not in their best interest to continue down that path when they are such an extreme minority in the world. If they were in the population position of Muslims, I'm not sure they would have changed it; that's just how religion is, unless there is an existential threat to the entirety of the followerbase, they WILL GENERALLY NOT CHANGE. And that obviously includes all religions. Christianity only changed because it had to in order to survive. The difference between all of those and Islam is that the majority of them live in a wasteland, they have very few opportunities in life, and thus are very easily controlled into doing things that are not in the best interest of their own survival. Living in hot, dry, sandy areas and being trampled by the upper class for your entire life isn't exactly an ideal environment to raise rational individuals in the first place. Education is slowly helping bring them up to a level of self sufficiency, but it's clearly not working quickly enough, they are for the most part still living in a bubble from a thousand years ago in terms of their mentality, even as the gain semi-current technology.

That's a whole different discussion and quite irrelevant to the current issue.
I'll just point out that people have done, and continue to do, horrible things in the name of all sorts of ideologies and allegiances that have nothing to do with supreme beings. Just look at the hooligan soccer fans in France right now. It seems to be part of human nature. We can't excise it, we need to learn to control it.

I would argue that certain sports that create riots such as soccer have reached near insane cult levels to begin with, it's basically formed a pseudo-religion.



I'd like to add that many of these solutions I am suggesting are, while violent, not the same TYPE of violence that terrorists commit; fighting defensively is simply different, it is used to protect oneself from a clear threat when all other options have been exhausted. We have been dealing with these people for too long, it's clear that things are not going to change, so I consider that the threat is so prevalent that nearly any action can be seen as fighting defensively at this point (at a national level, for clarification).

Banning Muslims is no better than the treatment we gave to Asians during WW2 and just isn't a workable solution. Good, law-abiding Muslims do not deserve to be kicked out because some of them commit acts of terrorism. As long as they've legally gained entrance here and are following the law like everyone else, you can't force them to banned and you shouldn't ban them from the due process of attaining citizenship if they honestly meet the requirements. The only reason we should be ''banning Muslims'' is if we truly have a crisis where we simply cannot accept any citizens due to being massively over-populated and that should apply to anyone trying to gain admission here.


There are definitely some that are gonna go on killing sprees, but I still don't think it's right to ban all of them because of the few that decide to.

Banning Muslims is no better than the treatment we gave to Asians during WW2 and just isn't a workable solution. Good, law-abiding Muslims do not deserve to be kicked out because some of them commit acts of terrorism. As long as they've legally gained entrance here and are following the law like everyone else, you can't force them to banned and you shouldn't ban them from the due process of attaining citizenship if they honestly meet the requirements. The only reason we should be ''banning Muslims'' is if we truly have a crisis where we simply cannot accept any citizens due to being massively over-populated and that should apply to anyone trying to gain admission here.


There are definitely some that are gonna go on killing sprees, but I still don't think it's right to ban all of them because of the few that decide to.

That's the thing though, it's almost anti-american what you're saying about the religion being "Blasphemous". The whole point of freedom of religion is to let you worship what you want and government not to force you to obey to one religion. Unfortunately we've had just as many Christian related death tolls such as Charles Whitman. You need to keep in mind you're dealing with a subject of mentality, doing gods work, and that isn't limited to one single culture. You're just seeing more of it.

This was just a hate crime that, honestly, wasn't too far ago the south was doing in the same in the name of Jesus. Hell, I would say that the mental torture of being told 'you're a fu`ck up, you don't know what you want" rehabilitation centers are much, MUCH worse than a shooting. When you drive someone to suicide because of your personal morality, that is a horror story. But at this point we're comparing nightmares, I guess the point is the only way we are going to beat this extremist attitude is by NOT isolating the citizens that are with us.

I won't make the claim anyone here is racist, I can understand fully the paranoia, frustration of wanting control, and trying to find a solution. It's like the syria refugees, do you risk bringing over these type of events, at the cost of people who need our help? There's no right answer, but you can't hate someone for thinking about their family first.

I never said they should not be free to worship whatever religion they want, just like I won't tell anyone they don't have the right to be racist or anything else.


I was just saying that Muslim is an overall bad religion, I am not campaigning for any mass-ban on the right to worship what they want and am not saying that no other religion does evil....they do, and when relevant topics about those religions pop up about them doing stuff like this they will are going to be under the same crosshairs.

It's not Anti-American to call something savage and brutal. I support someone's right to sympathize and support the K.K.K, no one has the right to tell them they can't. Their beliefs and overall ideals, and the weight they bare from past transgressions and violence makes me consider them a savage organization and deserving of mockery; but that doesn't mean I'm saying they absolutely cannot be a part of that hate group.


Banning someone's right to enter this country is what is really anti-American, and if that's what we have to do to feel safe then the Terrorists truly have won at that point. All the more so if we're banning them just because they happen to be the same group, race, or ethnicity that another group is a part of, that does not mean I condone their religion however and....all things said I just feel it's a savage religion and based on what I've looked around for so far I have yet to change my mind about that. In fact, the more I read up about it the more and more it leaves a bad taste in my mouth....and I just think that people who do follow that religion should seriously consider what it is they're supporting.

-It's a lot harder to hide your nationality than it is to hide a gun, you know. Determined terrorists will find their way in and be arrested on sight before they can even get to a crowded area if there were a Muslim ban, because at that point only the terrorists or persons of interest WOULD still be in the country, the rest would be gone. They can't just hide in a crowd of innocent Muslims when none are supposed to be left in the country.

Because nobody knows how to fake an ID or a passport.

They won't hide in a crowd of innocent Muslims, they'll hide in a crowd of innocent New Yorkers.
Omar Mateen was born in New York and presumably spoke the same English as any other New Yorker. If he managed to acquire papers saying his name was Andy Martin, would anyone have any reason to doubt it? He was a regular at the Pulse, apparently, and active on gay dating sites. If he just changed his name and didn't tell his co-workers his religion, nobody would know he wasn't an ordinary Godless American homo.

You suddenly trust that the FBI would run a proper background check on every single citizen and resident on American soil, and find their true identity?

As for foreigners, how do you tell their religion? The bombers in Paris spoke native French, it's really just a matter of fake papers and maybe a cross on a necklace to "prove" to the Immigration officers that they're ordinary Catholic Frenchmen. Other terrorists could be disguised as Indians of any of a dozen non-Islamic religions. Or, for that matter, Jewish Israelis. 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab. Mostly Muslim, some Christian, some Druze (who claim to not be Arab at all). Why, there are even Muslims in Canada. Are you going to close your borders to everyone? Are you going to run a long and expensive background check on every tourist?

Some of them might get caught. But don't imagine for a second that you could catch them all.

You suddenly trust that the FBI would run a proper background check on every single citizen and resident on American soil, and find their true identity?

Granted, they have been rather worthless, he was on a list twice and got cleared both times, they didn't even bother to ask a woman he was with for a couple years about him and that was only 2011 when they split. DNA testing isn't quite far enough along that we could rely on it, it's too slow to process and still prone to error. Why was a person who was on a terror watch list twice given security clearance in the first place, even IF he was cleared. Once is a coincidence, twice is suspicious as pineapple.

Granted, they have been rather worthless, he was on a list twice and got cleared both times, they didn't even bother to ask a woman he was with for a couple years about him and that was only 2011 when they split. DNA testing isn't quite far enough along that we could rely on it, it's too slow to process and still prone to error. Why was a person who was on a terror watch list twice given security clearance in the first place, even IF he was cleared. Once is a coincidence, twice is suspicious as pineapple.

They probably don't question ex-spouses because those are just as likely to lie out of vindictiveness or hatred as they are to tell the truth.

As for DNA testing: religion doesn't show on DNA tests, you know. There are plenty of African-Americans who converted to Islam, some even militant about it. And there are countries with multiple religions that are not always split on an ethnic basis.

There's certainly a large group of muslims who are "moderates", but the plain fact is that it often isn't even a majority in Islamic countries (this of course depends entirely on definition of a "moderate").

 Spoiler

On the other hand there's also too many Christians like this:

Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World”

"So, you know, the good news is that at least 50 of these pedophiles are not gonna be harming children anymore. The bad news is that a lot of the homos in the bar are still alive, so they’re gonna continue to molest children and recruit people into their filthy homosexual lifestyle"

Pastor refuses to mourn Orlando victims: ‘The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die’

“I wish the government would round them all up, put them up against a firing wall, put a firing squad in front of them, and blow their brains out,” Jimenez said during his Sunday sermon, which Verity Baptist posted on its website under the title “the Christian response to the Orlando murders.”

I don't see the difference between these fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist muslims who support sharia law. One thing that people tend to forget is that terrorist groups are usually a side product of wars/conflicts. If the west was as unstable and torn by conflict as the middle east, who knows how many of these fundamentalists would "take matters in their own hands".

I don't know, can we stop pretending that abrahamic religions are filled with love, peace and great moral lessons when anyone who actually opens up the rulebooks of these ideologies realizes that they're filled with hate against others and yourself? Nazis were progressive when it came to enviromentalism and animal rights, but apparently "animal rights" did not include homo sapiens. We don't have "moderate nazis", so it really puzzles me why religious people won't at least remove teachings of bible/quran that they no longer think are the "word of god". Because as long as the "word of god" says kill homosexuals, kill infidels, kill atheists, kill apostates, kill witches, kill those having premarital sex, we should not be suprised when a tiny portion of believers put this word of god into action.

Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World”

Pastor refuses to mourn Orlando victims: ‘The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die’


I don't see the difference between these fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist muslims who support sharia law. One thing that people tend to forget is that terrorist groups are usually a side product of wars/conflicts. If the west was as unstable and torn by conflict as the middle east, who knows how many of these fundamentalists would "take matters in their own hands".

zero. I don't even have to click on those links to know who it is. Steven Anderson. He's a pretty angry guy, and it's funny to watch his tantrums. He says that all of the LGBT are degenerates that are "reprobate", and who literally cannot be saved and are already damned, and that he regularly prays for them to just drop dead so they can't persuade anyone into perversion, but he constantly states that he would never resort to vigilantism, and for anyone to do so would be just as morally reprehensible.
This is the first I've heard of him supporting government execution of these "reprobates" though.
Maybe I need to resume making Youtube Poops of his tantrum-filled sermons.

I won't make the claim anyone here is racist, I can understand fully the paranoia, frustration of wanting control, and trying to find a solution.

I will never deny that I am diagnosed with mental illnesses, some that are associated with paranoia, so as always just take what I say with a grain of salt, these are the best solutions in my eyes and I will usually not be comfortable with less extreme solutions because they don't feel "safe" to me. A perfect example is this; my dad and I were talking about gun laws and the ability to own a gun if you are on mind altering drugs (medication, obviously illegal drug users should not have weapons) or have mental illnesses that can alter your mood such as bipolar, and I felt that in an optimum situation those people should not have access to guns, including myself, but at the same time I was conflicted because I simply don't want to lose them as protection no matter what and I think many people in my situation probably feel the same way.

It would be safer for society, but the utopian environment where the government can actually do things right will never come, I can never trust them to do anything right at this point, and if the job they do is not perfect I would feel much less safe instead of safer. My psychologist has used the term for that before but I forget what it is, but basically, I am paralyzed with fear over things that cannot be done perfectly (which, obviously, is everything), and so I cannot accept them and generally get nothing done because that perfectionism tells me that, rather than doing something and messing it up, it simply should not be done at all.

I don't see the difference between these fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist muslims who support sharia law. One thing that people tend to forget is that terrorist groups are usually a side product of wars/conflicts. If the west was as unstable and torn by conflict as the middle east, who knows how many of these fundamentalists would "take matters in their own hands".

I don't know, can we stop pretending that abrahamic religions are filled with love, peace and great moral lessons when anyone who actually opens up the rulebooks of these ideologies realizes that they're filled with hate against others and yourself? Nazis were progressive when it came to enviromentalism and animal rights, but apparently "animal rights" did not include homo sapiens.

There isn't much difference, and if they were in the same situation as the Muslims they would be doing the same pomegranate. Religion as a whole is the problem. And Nazis were actually very religious, Hitler attended giant Christmas parties every year and people sat their kids on his lap almost like he was Santa at those parties.

It's amazing how much discussing politics can even pineapple up a place like SP. Not that I'd have our bunch of misfits any other way...

[MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; That last response adds a lot of context and helps to understand your perspective. Thanks for sharing, it probably wasn't easy. [

[MENTION=3628]cronnoponno[/MENTION]; You're overly defensive. Most of your posts defend against attacks that weren't aimed at your or attacks at all.

I think we've come to the obvious consensus that the government can't enforcibly ban all (or certain types) guns or muslims. So let's just ignore the philosophical question about if we should try and focus on things that could actually be accomplished.

It's amazing how much discussing politics can even pineapple up a place like SP. Not that I'd have our bunch of misfits any other way...
Flonne; That last response adds a lot of context and helps to understand your perspective. Thanks for sharing, it probably wasn't easy. cronnoponno; You're overly defensive. Most of your posts defend against attacks that weren't aimed at your or attacks at all.

I think we've come to the obvious consensus that the government can't enforcibly ban all (or certain types) guns or muslims. So let's just ignore the philosophical question about if we should try and focus on things that could actually be accomplished.

The one thing I agree with is if the FBI (And they have) have any record of these individuals being in any form associated with ISIS, including travel in their area's, should have their passports denied, and indefinitely deported. Your choice of religion, and your race may not be used against you as a form of prejudice, but connections/participation with this cult, certainly does. I don't care if you shopped in the same store as them, if you want to return to the USA you will be faced with intense interrogation.

And Nazis were actually very religious, Hitler attended giant Christmas parties every year and people sat their kids on his lap almost like he was Santa at those parties.

The SS was neo-pagan and Hitler co-opted Christianity, fundamentally changing it to suit his needs.

It's amazing how much discussing politics can even pineapple up a place like SP. Not that I'd have our bunch of misfits any other way...
Flonne; That last response adds a lot of context and helps to understand your perspective. Thanks for sharing, it probably wasn't easy. cronnoponno; You're overly defensive. Most of your posts defend against attacks that weren't aimed at your or attacks at all.

I think we've come to the obvious consensus that the government can't enforcibly ban all (or certain types) guns or muslims. So let's just ignore the philosophical question about if we should try and focus on things that could actually be accomplished.

honestly, this is one of, if not the most civil internet politics discussion i've seen.

i think banning all muslims is a terrible idea, not even going into the obvious racism and whatnot shenanigans, say you ban them... to where? where do you send the american-born muslims? if they didn't hate you before they certainly will not like you now.

radical islam is an issue, i do think regular islam is a part of the problem, in the same way the christians had the crusades and whatnot back in the day, now however it's the islam's turn to go "cleansing the filth" when the world they're attacking has pretty much gone over that before.

The SS was neo-pagan and Hitler co-opted Christianity, fundamentally changing it to suit his needs.

the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained "Positive Christianity" as not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor in "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: "The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation"

Which would explain why they saw Hitler as Santa/Jesus/God/whatever, I guess.